Judgment Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Vide order dated 27.7.2004 the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation has dismissed the petitioner from service. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had obtained employment by furnishing a forged certificate of matriculation. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that besides the merit of the matter he wants to make submission on the punishment itself. Petitioner was due for superannuation on 31.7.2004 after having rendered more than 32 years of service. Petitioner joined the organization in the year, 1972 as a daily rated worker and had climbed to the post of Salesman-Cum-Storekeeper when the impugned order came to be passed against him. He further contends that at no point of time any allegation of this kind was racked up or raised against the petitioner. Some kind of verification was started in the year, 2002 and after due enquiry the impugned order contained in annexure-5 came to be passed. 4. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents they assert that the enquiry was held and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. But then since the matriculation certificate furnished by the petitioner was not found to be genuine or authentic by the Bihar State School Examination Board, the respondents took an extreme view of dismissing him from service. According to them it was a serious matter requiring no leniency. But it is also not denied that this exercise was started only sometime in the later part of 2002. 5. The Court taking the above facts into consideration and also the principle of disproportionatlity of the punishment comes to an opinion that dismissing an employee at the verge of his retirement on the basis of gaining entry into service way back 1972 is unduly harsh. More so when some} kind of enquiry or verification was made only before his superannuation. There is no averment on behalf of the respondents that there is any other wrong doing on behalf of the petitioner during his period in employment with the respondents. Reliance; has been placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision rendered in the case of Shiva Anand V/s. Indian Airlines Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2007(4) PLJR 214 (SC) and some other decisions rendered by this Bench on the point of disproportionatlity. 6. Reliance; has been placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision rendered in the case of Shiva Anand V/s. Indian Airlines Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2007(4) PLJR 214 (SC) and some other decisions rendered by this Bench on the point of disproportionatlity. 6. The Court is in agreement with the contention and principle of law urged at the bar that dismissal for the charge is too harsh a punishment imposed against the petitioner for the so called conduct which was not an issue when petitioner entered service in the year, 1972. 7. The Court therefore on the ground of excessive and harsh punishment meted out to petitioner quashes annexure-5 with, liberty to the respondents to pass any other order of punishment may be punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal. 8. This writ application is allowed with the above leave to the respondents.